Stun guns give police nonlethal option

EDITORIAL On the S.F. Chief's Request for Stun Guns

Updated 10:44 pm, Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Photo: Herb Swanson, AP

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

South Portland police officer Adam Howard holds a Taser X26 stun gun Saturday, April 23, 2005, in South Portland, Maine. About a dozen Maine police departments now use Tasers, weapons that use powerful electric shocks to quell suspects, and a growing number of departments are considering making the stun guns standard equipment. (AP Photo/Portland Press Herald, Herb Swanson) less

South Portland police officer Adam Howard holds a Taser X26 stun gun Saturday, April 23, 2005, in South Portland, Maine. About a dozen Maine police departments now use Tasers, weapons that use powerful electric ... more

Photo: Herb Swanson, AP

Stun guns give police nonlethal option

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

San Francisco's Police Commission has dragged its feet long enough. It's past time to equip this city's police officers with a nonlethal option that is available to their counterparts in almost every major American city.

The commission should approve Chief Greg Suhr's judiciously crafted plan for a pilot program in which specially trained officers would carry stun guns.

The decision could save lives in some circumstances.

Four years ago, Chief George Gascón ordered a study of officer-involved shootings over a five-year period. What it found was that the option of a stun gun could have avoided the use of a firearm in a third of the 15 cases.

Now Chief Suhr has renewed the proposal, with yet another example of how a death could have been avoided if the officer on the scene could have subdued a threatening suspect with an electrical jolt instead of a bullet. Parlith Pralourng, a 32-year-old Oakland man with a history of mental illness, was shot and killed July 18 when he lunged at an officer while wielding a box cutter.

How many more examples do commissioners need before they give San Francisco's officers one of the basic tools of modern policing?

Regrettably, the department's request for even limited use of stun guns keeps getting lost in the ideological haze of so-called progressives who have a hard time accepting the reality that serious force is sometimes the only way to stop a dangerous suspect.

The choice should not have to come down to using potentially inadequate force (pepper spray, beanbag pellets) or deadly force.

A stun gun, in properly trained hands, can immobilize even the strongest and most agitated suspect long enough to be apprehended.

One of the arguments against stun guns is that the electrical jolt can lead to death on rare occasions, usually in confrontations involving someone with a heart condition or under the influence of certain stimulants.

Suhr's latest proposal takes such medical concerns into account.

His pilot program would limit the issuance of stun guns to officers who were certified in dealing with mental health or drug issues. His proposal also would require officers who carry the stun guns to have a defibrillator handy.

Yes, there are risks associated with stun guns. Beyond the medical issue is the concern expressed by critics that the weapon would be used disproportionately against minorities and the mentally ill.

The pilot program will allow the San Francisco Police Department to show that this critical law-enforcement tool can be handled with professionalism and restraint. It just might save lives in the process.